Re: [asa] Behe's debate with himself...

Hi Bernie,

I was using the "hopeful monster" as an analogy so please don't get too tied up on the terminology.

The main point is that crux of Behe's form of evolution centers on a denial of the Darwinian affirmation that evolution proceeds in small, step-wise, increments.

Your right that if a mechanism could be discovered which drives this then that would be embraced as a natural, evolutionary mechanism.

Yet such a discovery would, I imagine, significantly alter the landscape in regards of philosophy of evolution. The metaphysical naturalists, in particular, would be hard pressed to defend their position given they have firmly nailed their colours to the mast of "small incremental changes".

But we'll just have to wait and see...

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Murray said:
> " In that respect Behe is effectively arguing for some sort of saltationist position - a reoccurring "hopeful monster" scenario, if you will - albeit at the biochemical level."
>
> I don't think "a hopeful monster" is consistent with ID. In fact, isn't evolution the "hopeful monster" in the eyes of Discovery Institute ID'ers?
>
> If Behe accepts design upfront (in the big bang) and rejects evolution, then what mechanism could be used? Whatever that mechanism is would be called "evolution." If a hopeful monster could erupt that way, it would be possible naturally and evolutionary theory would take that in as one more evolutionary mechanism.
>
> ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 28 18:18:36 2009